Your comments on HP5 Plus

[Tom Stanworth]

Hi,

This film seems to be either loved or loathed and I have noticed just how many people simply do not regard this film as worthy of use for example for LF landscape and would certainly use TRIX instead. Beleive it or not, I have never used TriX in 5x4 (I have used 120 a little and have no real opinion either way), but have used HP5 a lot in 120 and a little in 5x4. I have found it to be of moderate contrast and able to handle hot highlights extremely well esp in pyro type devs. IMHO it is the sharpest film I have ever used (stunning in Exactol lux), though enlargement of course has to be limited to prevent grain becoming an issue. In fact this was echoed by Trevor Crone in a recent article in Black and White Photography (Brit mag) as he was similarly stunned by the scalpel cut edges of HP5 Plus in PMK. I know it has a following for press/street etc, but what about as a landscape material? The results of HP5 in Exactol lux were so good that I said that if I ever moved to 8x10 THIS is what I would use....that was until I discovered the super sensual Efke 100!

Comments?

Tom

 

[dr bob]

An opinion on HP5+? I’ve experimented somewhat with 120 and 4x5 with mixed results. It seems important to give these films a presoak because there was some emulsion flaking (D76 1:1 9.5 min, Acidic acid stop 15 sec., Kodak or Ilford non-acid fixer 8 min.). I use the same agitation technique for all films and developers so hat was not relevant – maybe. The presoak seemed to rectify the problem.

As far as overall performance, HP5+ appears equivalent to TX-400 and as that is no longer available in 4x5, I will soon need to choose a new “standard”. HP5+ is definitely a candidate.

 

[argentic]

An opinion on HP5+? I?ve experimented somewhat with 120 and 4x5 with mixed results. It seems important to give these films a presoak because there was some emulsion flaking (D76 1:1 9.5 min, Acidic acid stop 15 sec., Kodak or Ilford non-acid fixer 8 min.).

I've been using HP5+ extensively over the last ten years. I have (almost) never presoaked, and have never encountered any sign of emulsion flaking.

HP5+ is an excellent film for 120 and 4x5. Very versatile and forgiving with different developers. An excellent Zone System film. Very sharp in Perceptol 1+3 or Rodinal. And an excellent all-round film in ID11/D76 or 2bath development

For 35 mm I prefer 100 ISO films (Delta, APX or FP4+).

 

[fhovie]

As much as I like Tri-x, if I need to enlarge a fast film very much, HP5 is my choice. The grain is much "softer" than tri-x for enlarging. I rate it at 1600 and push it in d-76 or I rate it at 200 and develop it in pyrocathd. It makes a good multipurpose film that way. If light is pleniful and motion is low, I will use FP4 or APX100. I also like tri-x at 200 in Microdol - that is very enlargable and my first choice for an asa 200 film/developer combo for roll films. Of course - all sheet films go in pyrocat except for special circumstances - IR - Tech Pan - big pushes etc.

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

...On a semi-related note, I can say with absolute confidence that Pyro-TEA is in every way equal to ABC Pyro, but far cheaper and more convenient.

I agree, I have been using a slight variation on Pyro-Tea. I mixed up 500ml of a concentrated stock solution of Pyrogallol in Propylene Glycol about 2-3 months ago. I use it to make working solutions of both PPPD and Pyro-TEA (I keep a jug of TEA in my photo lab).

Re Arista EDU 400: The folks at Freestyle tell me it is made by Forte in Hungary and is similar (or identical) to the latest version of Fortepan 400. I use J&C Classic 400 (also a Hungarian Forte film) and am very fond of it. J&C Classic 400 responds very well to both Pyrocat-HD and Pyro-TEA in my experience.

 

[papagene]

Tom,
I have been using HP5+, both in 120 & 4x5, developed in PMK Pyro. I like this combination very much. But I must say that I have preferred HP5 over Tri-X for many years, even before I started using Pyro. It is a matter of liking the look more than a quality issue. Just my $0.02.
gene

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

What's the formula for PPPD?

Here is Donald Miller's formulation for PPPD (it is in an APUG thread):

"For those who may want to try a Pyro paper developer, the following is the latest formulation that I have worked with:

43 gm Sodium Sulfite
.3 gm Phenidone
10 gm Catechol
5 gm Pyrogallol
50 gm Sodium Carbonate
3.5 gm Potassium Bromide
Water to make 1 liter

Dilute 1-1 to make 2 liter of use solution

The phenidone should be dissolved in alcohol just as in the Pyrocat formula.
As in all cases where exposure to Pyrogallol is involved, eye protection, nitrile gloves, and respirator should be worn. (Just as in any pyro formulation).

My early tests indicate this is a very active developer that shows good tonal separation throughout the print scale. Paper speeds are typically showing a one stop speed increase. Development times typically 2-3 minutes."

-------------------------------

In my version, I made up separate stock solutions with Propylene Glycol as the solvent for everything except the KBr, sulfite and carbonate.

My KBr percentage solution is water based.

I add the sulfite and carbonate as dry powder to the PPPD working solution.

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

Thanks for the reminder Tom. I remember the thread now. I had forgotten what Donald is calling his brew. I don't have any catechol or potassium bromide, so I guess I'll have to wait to try this developer. I'm really happy with the developer I'm using (I just came down from the darkroom) and admire the elegant simplicity of the formula. Which version of Pyro-TEA are you using? Juan is using Farber's version, which is much different from the Patrick Gainer formula I'm using.

I am using Patrick Gainer's exact Pyrogallol to Triethanolamine ratios (from his article in Phototechniques), but I'm mixing the working developer with the appropriate amount of my Pyrogallol/Polyethylene Glycol stock solution, TEA and water - nothing else. Since the Polyethylene Glycol is inert, the working developer solution is functionally identical to Gainer's Pyro-TEA.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

HP5+ has the remarkable ability to make any spot on the face of the earth look like England.

 

[Leon]

HP5+ has the remarkable ability to make any spot on the face of the earth look like England.

so everything on HP5+ looks beautiful, breathtaking and striking then, David?

 

[c6h6o3]

This film seems to be either loved or loathed and I have noticed just how many people simply do not regard this film as worthy of use for example for LF landscape and would certainly use TRIX instead.
Comments?

Tom

It's great film, but you have to be careful not to blow the highlights. It's incredibly sharp in ABC pyro, but locks up after about N+1.

BTW, I would never use TRIX (that's for kids, silly rabbit). I'd use TMax.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

so everything on HP5+ looks beautiful, breathtaking and striking then, David?

I do love England, if only because the weather reminds me of my hometown of Cleveland, Ohio, where we had 60 days of sunshine a year.

 

[Leon]

which part of england have you been visiting, David? - It's warm and sunny here for most of the summer. (and autumn too).

getting back to the point - I love HP5, although I only use roll film. I find it is best pulled about a stop in dilute perceptol or about 2/3 stop in pyrocat hd 1:1:100.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I'm just kidding, of course, about England, but there is something almost too linear about HP5+ for my taste. With HP5+ most of the action is happening in the middle values, and with Tri-X, the interest is at the ends of the scale. HP5+ seems more about gradation, and Tri-X is more about line, and I guess I like line.